Get access

Laser versus stapler: Outcomes in endoscopic repair of Zenker diverticulum§

Authors

  • Stewart I. Adam MD,

    Corresponding author
    1. Section of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Departments of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.
    • Yale Physicians Building, 4th Floor, 800 Howard Avenue, New Haven, CT 06510
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Boris Paskhover MD,

    1. Section of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Departments of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Clarence T. Sasaki MD

    1. Section of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Departments of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.
    Search for more papers by this author

  • Presented at the Triological Society Combined Sections Meeting, Miami, Florida, U.S.A, January 26–28, 2012.

  • This project was supported in part by the Virginia Wright Fund of the Yale New Haven Hospital.

  • §

    The authors have no other funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.

Abstract

Objectives/Hypothesis:

To analyze a single surgeon's experience with endoscopic CO2 laser and stapler repair of Zenker diverticulum (ZD) by comparing dysphagia and regurgitation outcomes.

Study Design:

Retrospective chart review of 148 patient charts.

Methods:

Medical records of all patients receiving endoscopic repair of ZD with either CO2 laser (61 patients) or stapler (67 patients) were reviewed. Additional data included demographics (age and sex), size (cm), preoperative and postoperative symptoms, need for revision, and complications. Symptoms of dysphagia were graded based on a modified Functional Oral Intake Scale 1 to 4 scale (1 = normal intake; 4 = severely limited/G-tube dependent). Regurgitation was also graded on a 1 to 4 scale (1 = no regurgitation; 4 = aspiration events).

Results:

We noted no difference in patient age or defect size (laser, 3.26 cm; stapler, 3.53 cm; P .135). Significant differences were noted in return trips to the operating room for failed procedures (laser, 0; stapler, 7; P = .009), length of stay (laser, 3.19 days; stapler, 1.29 days; P < .001), time to oral intake (laser, 3.01 days; stapler, 1.22 days; P < .001). Significant improvement occurred in laser and staple patient symptom scales following surgery (P < .001). Laser dysphagia and regurgitation scores showed greater improvement when compared to stapler scores (P < .001).

Conclusions:

Endoscopic CO2 laser and staple methods are effective in treating ZD. The laser can have greater efficacy and result in lower recurrence rates. Both methods are analyzed and compared.

Get access to the full text of this article

Ancillary